swhx7
Premium
join:2006-07-23
Elbonia
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| power, not intent is the problem It doesn't matter that it hasn't been used. The fact that it's in there is the problem. The company could invoke it at any time.
Even if it said that it would be applied only in case of false statements or illegal behavior, it would be unacceptable because it would be seeking to substitute the ISP's own judgment in place of law. But there are no such limitations in the text.
I predicted this in an earlier thread about forced-arbitration clauses: I said that once corporations discover they can require consumers to give up access to the courts in order to purchase goods and services, and get away with it, they will expand the list to require customers to bargain away other basic human rights as well, including freedom of speech.
It would be too damaging to business for companies to start using these anti-criticism clauses today, but they will use these and more as soon as they get the opportunity. It will continue until we're all like medieval serfs, if we don't get laws to restrain this kind of abuse. |
